[Talk-us] Address Standard
kevin at atkinson.dhs.org
Sat Aug 14 05:07:13 BST 2010
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Steven Johnson wrote:
> If you want to see the mother of all street naming trainwrecks, have a look
> at Hickory, NC. Story goes that sometime back in the '30's, the city
> fathers/mothers thought they would rationalize street naming. But what makes
> sense on gridded streets makes an *awful* mnemonic device for wayfinding,
> especially in the hilly, western piedmont of NC. You also have some really
> perverse examples of streetnaming, like "19th Ave Pl NW".
Thanks for the other data point. In case I didn't make it already clear
in my other emails, what I am saying is that maybe always displaying the
directionals is not always the best way to present them. I do not know
what the correct solution is. However, I am not advocating the complete
suppression except in limited cases. For example, when the directional is
more of a positive/negative for an address than specifying a region of the
city, such as the case in Salt Lake City. The decision to suppress
directionals in this limited case should be evaluated on a city by city
bases and by those who are familiar with the area.
> Rather than look to paper maps and Google for how they map it, it may be
> more useful to look at how local E911 services and USPS treat these
That is not going to help, what is at issue here (at least for me) is what
should be displayed as part of the street name of a map. Not what goes
into the address.
> There are times when a street type (e.g. Ave, St, Ln, Pl) is part
> of the name (e.g. 19th Ave Pl NW, where "Ave" is part of the street name)
> and times when the directional prefix/suffix (e.g. N, S, E W) are part of
> the street name (e.g. "North Temple"). I think only local knowledge is the
> way to resolve these issues.
Yes local knowledge is the only way to resolve it.
More information about the Talk-us